MIDDLE OF THE ROAD IN HEALTHCARE LEADS TO SOCIALISM by RON PAUL

The ever-expanding role of government in healthcare provides an excellent example of Ludwig Von Mises’ warning that “The Middle of the Road Leads to Socialism.” Beginning in the 1940s, government policies distorted the health care market, causing prices to rise and denying many Americans access to quality care. Congress reacted to the problems caused by their prior
interventions with new interventions, such as the HMO Act, ERISA, EMTLA, and various federal entitlement programs. Each new federal intervention not only failed to fix the problems it was supposedly created to solve, it created new problems, leading to calls for even more new federal interventions. This process culminated in 2010, when Congress passed Obamacare.

Contrary to the claims of some of its opponents, Obamacare is not socialized medicine. It is corporatized medicine. After all, the central feature of Obamacare is the mandate that all Americans buy health insurance from private health insurance companies. And, as with previous government interventions in the marketplace, Obamacare is not only failing to correct the problems caused by prior federal laws, it is creating new problems.

Consider the almost weekly stories about how Obamacare is causing health insurance premiums to rise, causing employees to lay off workers or reduce their workers' hours, and causing doctors to leave the profession. Also, consider the problems the administration is already having administering the federal exchanges and other parts of the health care law.

I fully expect the implosion of Obamacare to continue, and the supporters of nationalized health care to use Obamacare’s failures to push for a Canadian-style “single payer” health care system.
Unfortunately, some Obamacare opponents fail to see that the problem is not just Obamacare, but all government interference with health care. These Obamacare opponents advocate replacing Obamacare with “Obamacare lite.” But economic law teaches us that “Obamacare lite” will be no more successful than Obamacare.

In order to win the battle for health freedom, those who oppose nationalized health care must have the courage to advocate for a complete free market in health care. Enhanced individual tax credits and enhanced use of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) are just two polices that could help restore a free-market in health care by putting control over the health care dollar back in the hands of the people. A good place to start would be to repeal Obamacare’s restrictions on HSAs.

Long-term group insurance contracts could ensure that those with pre-existing conditions could obtain coverage. Under such a contract, individuals could pool resources to purchase a group policy that would cover any and all problems any member might develop over time. Businesses, churches, community organizations, and even fraternities and sororities could offer these types of contracts.
Negative outcomes insurance, where patients waive the right to sue for medical errors in exchange for guaranteed payouts to those harmed, could reduce the burden of malpractice litigation.

Other free-market health care reforms that could make the health care market more competitive and lower the cost of health care include allowing individuals to purchase insurance from across state lines, removing restrictions on physician-owned hospitals, and reducing the regulatory power of the Food and Drug Administration.

Some will say it is unrealistic to advocate replacing Obamacare with a pure free-market system, but in fact it is unrealistic to expect anything less than a true free-market to provide quality health care for Americans at all income levels. Continuing on the “middle of the road” in health care by mixing free-markets with government spending and regulations will only continue to take us on the road to socialized health care.

TOP 10 RECENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS OF RON PAUL - NUMBER NINE

9. THE TEA PARTY, THE FUTURE OF GOP, AND…ANTI-SEMITISM?

Question (via 316nuts):

The Tea Party had so much steam in 2010. Everyone was afraid of the Tea Party’s political influence. Everything fell apart by 2012 and the GOP blew the Presidential election. What went wrong and what will you do to regain and maintain political relevance?

Separately, what is your response to the charges that you’re speaking at an “anti-Semetic” conference?

Answer:

Well I don’t deal with the Tea Party (or the Republican party or any of that) per se, we must deal with the idealogy [sic] of the concept of liberty. The Tea Party was actually started during the Ron Paul presidential campaign in 2007 when there was a spontaneous moneybomb that was done on the anniversary of the original tea party. And it was strictly related to the issues and ideas I have just finished talking about. What happened after that was that a lot of people came onboard – including Republicans – who watered down some of the beliefs, and certainly changed the opinion of some on foreign policy so that the original Tea Party movement was taken over by the Republican Party, which I think was part of the problem.

You know, I read about that yesterday. I have not read the article that was written so I was pretty surprised about this. I recall when I received the invitation from my speaker’s bureau about this group that was strongly anti-war and they wanted me to speak to a Conservative Catholic Group about non-interventionist foreign policy and I said “wow, that sounds right up my alley.” The topic I was planning to talk on was “Peace, Prosperity and Tolerance.”

The article that came out yesterday is disturbing, and I have not read it yet, but the question is raised – exactly who is making the allegations. I have not yet sorted it out, and it makes me uneasy, but frequently the opposition uses tactics which are pure demagoguery and falsehoods, so I’m looking into it. The problem there is: should one be intimidated by someone who is saying something true or saying something false to undermine an individual like myself who preaches a message of tolerance and peace?

LARRY KING INTERVIEW



Watch The Full Interview Here

TOP 10 QUESTIONS RECENTLY ASKED OF RON PAUL - NUMBER 10

10. THE “WILDCARD” QUESTION

Question (via gerudo_pirate): “Dr. Paul, what is the bravest thing you’ve ever done?”

Answer:

To tell you the truth, I’ve never thought about it. I’ve never thought of me doing a whole lot that I would categorize as brave. Other people have said that what I do standing up to the establishment and speaking my piece of mind and not backing down as being something brave, but I don’t think of it in that manner. So I don’t have a good answer for that, but I appreciate it when people compliment me on sticking to my principles.

WHY THE 2,776 NSA VIOLATIONS ARE NO BIG DEAL by RON PAUL

Thanks to more documents leaked by Edward Snowden, this time to the Washington Post, we learned last week that a secret May 2012 internal audit by the NSA revealed 2,776 incidents of “unauthorized” collection of information on American citizens over the previous 12 months. They are routinely breaking their own rules and covering it up.

The Post article quotes an NSA spokesman assuring the paper that the NSA attempts to identify such problems “at the earliest possible moment.” But what happened to all those communications intercepted improperly in the meantime? The answer is, they were logged and stored anyway.

We also learned that the NSA routinely intercepts information from Americans while actually targeting foreigners, and that this is not even considered a violation. These intercepts are not deleted once discovered, even though they violate the government’s own standards. As the article reports, “once added to its databases, absent other restrictions, the communications of Americans may be searched freely.”

The Post article quotes an NSA official explaining that the thousands of unauthorized communications intercepts yearly are relatively insignificant. “You can look at it as a percentage of our total activity that occurs each day. You look at a number in absolute terms that looks big, and when you look at it in relative terms, it looks a little different.”

So although the numbers of Americans who have had their information intercepted in violation of NSA’s own rules seems large, it is actually miniscule compared to the huge volume of our communications they intercept in total!

Though it made for a sensational headline last week, the fact is these 2,776 “violations” over the course of one year are completely irrelevant. The millions and millions of “authorized” intercepts of our communications are all illegal -- except for the very few carried out in pursuit of a validly-issued search warrant in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. That is the real story. Drawing our attention to the violations unfortunately sends the message that the “authorized” spying on us is nothing to be concerned about.

When information about the massive NSA domestic spying program began leaking earlier in the summer, Deputy Attorney General James Cole assured us of the many levels of safeguards to prevent the unauthorized collection, storage, and distribution of our communications. He promised to explain the NSA’s record “in as transparent a way as we possibly can.”

Yet two months later we only discover from more leaked documents the thousands of times communications were intercepted in violation of their own standards! It is hardly reassuring, therefore, when they promise us they will be more forthcoming in the future. No one believes them because they have lied and covered up continuously. The only time any light at all is shone on these criminal acts by the government is when a whistleblower comes forth with new and ever more disturbing information.

Americans are increasingly concerned over these violations of their privacy. Calls for reform grow. However, whenever Washington finds itself in a scandal, the government responds by naming a government panel made up of current and former government employees to investigate any mistakes the government might have made. The recommendations invariably are that even more government employees must be hired to provide an additional layer or two of oversight. That is supposed to reassure us that reforms have been made, while in fact it is just insiders covering up for those who have hired them to investigate.

Let us hope the American people will decide that such trickery is no longer acceptable. It is time to take a very serious look at the activities of the US intelligence community. The first step would be a dramatic reduction in appropriations to force a focus on those real, not imagined, threats to our national security. We should not be considered the enemy.

WHAT I THINK........ADAM GABBATT

Ron Paul officially launched his Ron Paul Channel this week, an online news source that purports to be the "next chapter of our revolution" and comes with titles, interviews with key players and lots of Ron Paul talking about libertarianism.

Filmed in the little town of Clute, Texas, and Los Angeles, the Ron Paul Channel will publish three 30-minute shows per week. Its slogan: "Turn Off Your TV. Turn On the Truth" suggests a combative tone, while those behind it say there has been an "outpouring of interest" in the first few days.

It's Paul's first major initiative since retiring from Congress in January. He told the Guardian that he opted for a news channel "because the mainstream media is not telling the stories that Americans really need to know".
"There is no space for people to have a real discussion about the Fed or drone strikes abroad or the pharmaceutical industry, let alone how our freedoms are being infringed upon by big government," he said. "These are issues that affect Americans daily and this channel aims to address that directly."
At the centre of it all is Ron Paul – which the title credits make clear. To the strains of vaguely patriotic music, we are treated to the various ages of Paul. Photographs of a young Paul wearing a stethoscope disappear to be replaced by an older Paul smiling at the camera. Then the younger Paul makes a return, this time in military garb.
The words "Ron", "Paul" and "channel" weave around before eventually settling into place. As they fade, Paul appears in person, the veteran libertarian sat behind a smart desk with photos of family, along with a statue of a swooping eagle, visible in the background.
As the titles stopped playing on Thursday's show – editions of the Ron Paul Channel will air on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday each week – Paul declared that his new forum was "the one place where I can finally express my opinion, unfiltered and uninterrupted".
That certainly seems to be the purpose of the channel – to air Paul's views to his legions of fans for $9.99 a month. That purpose seems to jar slightly with the current format, however, with Diana Alvear, a former correspondent for NBC News and ABC News brought on board to give guidance and presumably journalistic respectability, but effectively serving only to help Paul up on to his soap box.
On Monday Alvear, who is based in LA and described by Paul as being "in our newsroom", ran through news of US drone strikes in Yemen, before actually saying this:

They've killed a total of nine suspected militants, and Ron, I know you have lots to say about these measures.

Paul then explained why he was "in favour of a non-interventionalist foreign policy": "You be friends with as many countries as possible … but you don't invade them, you don't bomb them."
Later, Alvear read a news report on legalization of drugs before musing: "You're a doctor. What's your take on this issue?", allowing her to kick back for five minutes as Paul launched into a breathless, wide-ranging, five-minute speech.

So the show is less news channel, more format-for-Paul-to-broadcast-his-ideas-and-beliefs, like a video version of a talk radio show. That is is unlikely to bother viewers, however. (The subscription model implies will be people already interested in hearing Paul's opinions.) The former congressman's army of devoted followers was well documented during his presidential run, and it is likely those who will be willing to stump up the money.

The 77-year-old had his most successful run for the White House last year, coming in second in the New Hampshire and Maine primaries. He even won the US Virgin Islands caucus, garnering 112 votes to Mitt Romney's 104, and generally outperforming expectations with his limited government, anti-interventionist message. Most strikingly, he managed to invigorate a huge band of young, enthusiastic followers – something his rivals for the Republican nomination never came close to doing.

"I'm busier than ever," Paul said in an email interview. "With the channel and my new book about homeschooling." He is also working to continue to encourage those young supporters, speaking on college campuses around the country, and working with the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

He said the channel was aimed at "folks who are looking for the truth beyond what the mainstream media tells them; for people who are concerned about the issues that are really facing this country".

The channel encourages viewers to submit their questions directly to Paul via Twitter and Facebook, with him responding in the show. "It gives me an opportunity to have an open dialogue with viewers about what I think is important and the cause of liberty and freedom," he said. But ultimately the constitution – specifically it's protection – is never far from Paul's heart.

"We'll be covering a range of current topics - everything from foreign affairs to fiscal policies to domestic issues. Our focus will be on the freedom movement and how the events of today will affect the liberties that the Constitutions affords us," he added.

BLOGGER PROBLEMS AGAIN...SORRY

WHAT I THINK........DANIEL McADAMS

Yesterday’s launch of the Ron Paul Channel was everything I hoped it would be! It was funny, inspiring, informative, and most of all it was unique. It was really the Ron Paul show.

Without a doubt in that short half hour he covered more topics than a month’s worth of mainstream media newscasts, which are nothing but fluff anyway. Drones, Yemen, the drug war, Snowden, a Glenn Greenwald interview — it was almost dizzying!

OK, I will admit I am biased. I have worked for Dr. Paul for more than a decade so it’s no surprise I am enthusiastic about this new venture. But as fun — and triumphant — as it was to see him deliver a statement or speech on the House Floor or even speak at a high-energy political rally, this is nothing like we have seen before. It is a whole new horizon not just for him, but for everyone interested in spreading the ideas of peace and liberty.

For most of us, the mainstream media — be it print or broadcast — just does not work. We struggle to get informed and keep informed and it is mind-numbing to watch and read the dumbed-down pablum fed to the masses. Like me, millions are just turning it all off. So this was made for us.

Infuriatingly, we have seen some whining from what Tom Woods so aptly calls the libertarian moochers over the fact that there is a subscription fee to access the Ron Paul Channel. Do people think that television studios and equipment and producers and researchers, etc. grow on trees? That a news source not beholden to the usual military industrial complex related big advertisers should be sustained by pixie dust somehow? The idea that paying the equivalent of one six-pack of beer — two McValue meals — per month to enjoy and support this unique and valuable venture is just too outrageous? Really? It should be free?

Thankfully this is a loud but tiny minority.

GET IT NOW!

Turn Off Your TV. Turn on the Truth. The Ron Paul Channel is up and running….in HD! You can feel Ron’s excitement as he takes us behind the scenes of his new TV studio. He selected some of his favorite momentos for decoration; for example, important books, photos, a copy of the Constitution and much more.  Now, you can have access to content the main stream media won’t cover.  To subscribe go to ronpaulchannel.com

WHY ARE WE AT WAR IN YEMEN? by RON PAUL

Most Americans are probably unaware that over the past two weeks the US has launched at least eight drone attacks in Yemen, in which dozens have been killed. It is the largest US escalation of attacks on Yemen in more than a decade. The US claims that everyone killed was a “suspected militant,” but Yemeni citizens have for a long time been outraged over the number of civilians killed in such strikes. The media has reported that of all those killed in these recent US strikes, only one of the dead was on the terrorist “most wanted” list.

This significant escalation of US attacks on Yemen coincides with Yemeni President Hadi’s meeting with President Obama in Washington earlier this month. Hadi was installed into power with the help of the US government after a 2011 coup against its long-time ruler, President Saleh. It is in his interest to have the US behind him, as his popularity is very low in Yemen and he faces the constant threat of another coup.

In Washington, President Obama praised the cooperation of President Hadi in fighting the Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This was just before the US Administration announced that a huge unspecified threat was forcing the closure of nearly two dozen embassies in the area, including in Yemen. According to the Administration, the embassy closings were prompted by an NSA-intercepted conference call at which some 20 al-Qaeda leaders discussed attacking the West. Many remain skeptical about this dramatic claim, which was made just as some in Congress were urging greater scrutiny of NSA domestic spying programs.

The US has been involved in Yemen for some time, and the US presence in Yemen is much greater than we are led to believe. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week:

“At the heart of the U.S.-Yemeni cooperation is a joint command center in Yemen, where officials from the two countries evaluate intelligence gathered by America and other allies, such as Saudi Arabia, say U.S. and Yemeni officials. There, they decide when and how to launch missile strikes against the highly secretive list of alleged al Qaeda operatives approved by the White House for targeted killing, these people say.”

Far from solving the problem of extremists in Yemen, however, this US presence in the country seems to be creating more extremism. According to professor Gregory Johnson of Princeton University, an expert on Yemen, the civilian “collateral damage” from US drone strikes on al-Qaeda members actually attracts more al-Qaeda recruits:

“There are strikes that kill civilians. There are strikes that kill women and children. And when you kill people in Yemen, these are people who have families. They have clans. And they have tribes. And what we're seeing is that the United States might target a particular individual because they see him as a member of al-Qaeda. But what's happening on the ground is that he's being defended as a tribesman.”

The US government is clearly at war in Yemen. It is claimed they are fighting al-Qaeda, but the drone strikes are creating as many or more al-Qaeda members as they are eliminating. Resentment over civilian casualties is building up the danger of blowback, which is a legitimate threat to us that is unfortunately largely ignored. Also, the US is sending mixed signals by attacking al-Qaeda in Yemen while supporting al-Qaeda linked rebels fighting in Syria.

This cycle of intervention producing problems that require more intervention to “solve” impoverishes us and makes us more, not less, vulnerable. Can anyone claim this old approach is successful? Has it produced one bit of stability in the region? Does it have one success story? There is an alternative. It is called non-interventionism. We should try it. First step would be pulling out of Yemen.

THE RON PAUL CHANNEL

Today, former-Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul announced the Ron Paul Channel (www.RonPaulChannel.com) would launch the week of August 12, 2013 and new details about the Channel. Known for refusing to play by the establishment’s rules, Dr. Paul will air all original programming several times a week.

Since announcing the Ron Paul Channel’s creation solely on Facebook and Twitter, more than 200,000 people have gone to www.RonPaulChannel.com to express interest in learning more about the channel and Dr. Paul’s programming.

The Ron Paul Channel will begin by providing fresh, engaging original programming each week, available to subscribers live or on-demand. Subscriptions will cost $9.95 per month and provide subscribers with direct access to Dr. Paul and a diverse array of guests.

The Ron Paul Channel expands upon Paul’s vast grassroots and online support, capitalizing on the increasing demand for accessible, interesting and original programming. The Ron Paul Channel will stream online, allowing subscribers to watch it when they want, where they want and on the device they want: internet-connected televisions, computers, tablets, and smart phones.

WHAT I THINK........BILL RICE

Truth be told the main reason I started investing in precious metals is Ron Paul. And, truth be told, the main reason I’m not interested in selling any of my silver or gold (or mining stocks) is also Ron Paul.

 

As a fairly novice investor, I’m quick to acknowledge that I lack sophisticated knowledge about many of the terms, concepts and topics that seem to influence more experienced or “professional” traders.

 

For example, I know nothing about “technical analysis” or “Fibonacci waves.” I’m also pretty clueless about the workings of futures markets - “naked shorts,” “concentrated positions” and the like.

 

For people like myself (who will probably never take the time to become experts in the intricacies of the precious metals trading worlds), a substitute investing strategy requires the identification of a “guru” we believe in and trust more than any other figure, and then simply follow his advice.

 

That is, we trust our “instincts” about individuals who we believe have, time and again, demonstrated they know more than others. We look for people who have consistently displayed keen instincts, people who we have come to believe have deeply studied a topic(s) and have reached unwavering conclusions based on their in-depth studies.

 

For me, this person is Ron Paul. This is the man, more than any, I put my faith in.

 

Of course, as gurus go, Ron Paul is a faith-tester. He is the definition of a “contrarian” and probably the Father of Political Incorrectness.

 

Even now I can hear some readers pecking away at their keyboards in rebuttal: “So how has that Ron Paul ‘advice’ worked out for you lately?”

 

Well, in the last nine or so months (when the USD prices of gold and silver have plummeted), not very well at all.

 

But then again - thanks in part to the teachings and pronouncements of Paul - I haven’t been in the market to sell my precious metals. In fact - a contrarian like my mentor - I’ve been buying the stuff. For me, acquiring silver is a long-term play (and Paul, a great student of economic history, is definitely a long-term thinker).

 

However, if I had “discovered” Ron Paul when he first entered national politics in the late ‘70s - and followed his advice to acquire gold and silver - I’d be rich by now and composing these columns at my beach home.

 

So why do I put my trust in Ron Paul? Why do I think that his analysis about the macro economy is spot on, and that his predictions for the future will become reality at some point in time?

 

Simply put, because just about everything he’s talked about and warned us about in the past has come to fruition (or is clearly coming to fruition even as I write).

 

What follows are “talking points” emphasized by Paul over the course of decades. As you will see, many of these positions and statements provoked boos (literally) from his audience, and certainly derision or ridicule from the mainstream media and mainstream political class.

 

But Paul has nonetheless stuck to his convictions (one of many reasons I’ve come to admire him).

 

Here’s a sample of Paul’s political and economic positions with comments about how his once controversial pronouncements are perceived years later.

WHY WON'T THEY TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT NSA SPYING by RON PAUL

In 2001, the Patriot Act opened the door to US government monitoring of Americans without a warrant. It was unconstitutional, but most in Congress over my strong objection were so determined to do something after the attacks of 9/11 that they did not seem to give it too much thought. Civil liberties groups were concerned, and some of us in Congress warned about giving up our liberties even in the post-9/11 panic. But at the time most Americans did not seem too worried about the intrusion.

This complacency has suddenly shifted given recent revelations of the extent of government spying on Americans. Politicians and bureaucrats are faced with serious backlash from Americans outraged that their most personal communications are intercepted and stored. They had been told that only the terrorists would be monitored. In response to this anger, defenders of the program have time and again resorted to spreading lies and distortions. But these untruths are now being exposed very quickly.

In a Senate hearing this March, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Senator Ron Wyden that the NSA did not collect phone records of millions of Americans. This was just three months before the revelations of an NSA leaker made it clear that Clapper was not telling the truth. Pressed on his false testimony before Congress, Clapper apologized for giving an “erroneous” answer but claimed it was just because he “simply didn’t think of Section 215 of the Patriot Act.” Wow.

As the story broke in June of the extent of warrantless NSA spying against Americans, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers assured us that the project was a strictly limited and not invasive. He described it as a “lockbox with only phone numbers, no names, no addresses in it, we’ve used it sparingly, it is absolutely overseen by the legislature, the judicial branch and the executive branch, has lots of protections built in...”

But we soon discovered that also was not true either. We learned in another Guardian newspaper article last week that the top secret “X-Keyscore” program allows even low-level analysts to “search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals.”

The keys to Rogers’ “lockbox” seem to have been handed out to everyone but the janitors! As Chairman of the Committee that is supposed to be most in the loop on these matters, it seems either the Intelligence Community misled him about their programs or he misled the rest of us. It sure would be nice to know which one it is.

Likewise, Rep. Rogers and many other defenders of the NSA spying program promised us that this dragnet scooping up the personal electronic communications of millions of Americans had already stopped “dozens” of terrorist plots against the United States. In June, NSA director General Keith Alexander claimed that the just-disclosed bulk collection of Americans’ phone and other electronic records had “foiled 50 terror plots.”

Opponents of the program were to be charged with being unconcerned with our security.

But none of it was true.

The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday heard dramatic testimony from NSA deputy director John C. Inglis. According to the Guardian:

“The NSA has previously claimed that 54 terrorist plots had been disrupted ‘over the lifetime’ of the bulk phone records collection and the separate program collecting the internet habits and communications of people believed to be non-Americans. On Wednesday, Inglis said that at most one plot might have been disrupted by the bulk phone records collection alone.”

From dozens to “at most one”?

Supporters of these programs are now on the defensive, with several competing pieces of legislation in the House and Senate seeking to rein in an administration and intelligence apparatus that is clearly out of control. This is to be commended. What is even more important, though, is for more and more and more Americans to educate themselves about our precious liberties and to demand that their government abide by the Constitution. We do not have to accept being lied to – or spied on -- by our government.